There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! [Relativity]

Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????

From: glird on 25 Feb 2010 15:26

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have
"influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses
bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between
galaxies). >
>
glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss
Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules
or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles".
Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the
start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the
unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek
philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits
of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why
they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that
matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they
easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need
for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory.
Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between
those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible
material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout
the infinite and unbounded universe.>
>
> How about: Matter and aether are different states of the
> same material.

Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the
aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the
matter outside of local atoms.

>< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. >

I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"!
(John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate
general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the
fabric of empty space.)

> To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to
> work.

Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR
use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't
intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the-
continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space.

> You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'.
> Matter and aether are different states of mather.

I'd rather say it like it is.
If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that
we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books.

glird

From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 19:31

On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have
> "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses
> bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between
> galaxies). >
>
> glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss
> Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules
> or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles".
> Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the
> start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the
> unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek
> philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits
> of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why
> they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that
> matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they
> easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need
> for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory.
> Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between
> those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible
> material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout
> the infinite and unbounded universe.>
>
>
>
> > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the
> > same material.
>
> Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the
> aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the
> matter outside of local atoms.
>
> >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. >
>
> I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"!
> (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate
> general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the
> fabric of empty space.)
>

What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition
it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the-
material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-
compressible-substance-that-fills-space'

Matter = nuclei
Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-
surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-
fills-space

Matter and aether are different states of mather.

> > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to
> > work.
>
> Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR
> use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't
> intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the-
> continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
> nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space.
>
> > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'.
> > Matter and aether are different states of mather.
>
> I'd rather say it like it is.
> If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that
> we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books.
>
> glird

From: BURT on 25 Feb 2010 20:28

On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have
> > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses
> > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between
> > galaxies). >
>
> > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss
> > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules
> > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles".
> > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the
> > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the
> > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek
> > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits
> > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why
> > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that
> > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they
> > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need
> > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory.
> > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between
> > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible
> > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout
> > the infinite and unbounded universe.>
>
> > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the
> > > same material.
>
> > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the
> > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the
> > matter outside of local atoms.
>
> > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. >
>
> > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"!
> > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate
> > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the
> > fabric of empty space.)
>
> What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition
> it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the-
> material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-
> compressible-substance-that-fills-space'
>
> Matter = nuclei
> Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-
> surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-
> fills-space
>
> Matter and aether are different states of mather.
>
>
>
> > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to
> > > work.
>
> > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR
> > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't
> > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the-
> > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
> > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space.
>
> > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'.
> > > Matter and aether are different states of mather.
>
> > I'd rather say it like it is.
> > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that
> > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books.
>
> > glird- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Atomic shells should be included as part of the structure of matter
mpc.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Mike Cavedon on 25 Feb 2010 21:16

On Feb 25, 8:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have
> > > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses
> > > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between
> > > galaxies). >
>
> > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss
> > > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules
> > > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles".
> > > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the
> > > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the
> > > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek
> > > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits
> > > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why
> > > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that
> > > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they
> > > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need
> > > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory..
> > > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between
> > > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible
> > > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout
> > > the infinite and unbounded universe.>
>
> > > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the
> > > > same material.
>
> > > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the
> > > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the
> > > matter outside of local atoms.
>
> > > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. >
>
> > > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"!
> > > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate
> > > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the
> > > fabric of empty space.)
>
> > What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition
> > it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the-
> > material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-
> > compressible-substance-that-fills-space'
>
> > Matter = nuclei
> > Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-
> > surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-
> > fills-space
>
> > Matter and aether are different states of mather.
>
> > > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to
> > > > work.
>
> > > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR
> > > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't
> > > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the-
> > > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
> > > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space.
>
> > > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'.
> > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather.
>
> > > I'd rather say it like it is.
> > > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that
> > > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books.
>
> > > glird- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Atomic shells should be included as part of the structure of matter
> mpc.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

If our interpretation of the nuclei and what the nuclei exist of and
what the nuclei themselves combine to form is matter and the space
between the nuclei to consist of aether then in this definition of
mather what exists between the nuclei is not matter.

From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 21:26

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????